Family Friendly Briefing - SF Planning

HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDRENJANUARY 17, 2017

San Francisco Planning DepartmentCitywide Policy Planning

San Francisco Planning Department

1650 Mission Street Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94103-3114

Mayor

Edwin M. Lee

Board of Supervisors

London Breed, President

Malia Cohen

Mark Farrell

Sandar Fewer

Jane Kim

Aaron Peskin

Eric Mar

Hillary Ronen

Ahsha Safai

Jeff Sheehy

Katy Tang

Norman Yee


John Rahaim, Director of Planning

Susan Exline

Anne Brask

Sheila Nickolopoulos

Planning Commission

Rodney Fong, President

Rich Hillis

Christine Johnson)

Joel Koppel

Myrna Melgar

Kathrin Moore

Dennis Richards

~~P~Q

COUNlj,O~r'̀"'- 9 SAN FRANCISCOw ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENTw a

~2o Jb3s",:: '"o'cl

1650 Mission St.Suite 400San Francisco,

Families with children are essential to keeping San Francisco a diverse, thriving CA 94103-2479

Cl~. Reception:415.558.6378

The challenge of keeping families in San Francisco is multifaceted, exacerbated by Fes:the rate at which we are seeing low and middle-income families leave the City. A

415.558.6409

rapidly growing income inequality and the lack of housing have taken on Planninginformation:

increased urgency as we continue to grapple with a multitude of issues for all San 415.558.6377

Franciscans: schools, transportation, gentrification and displacement, publicsafety, and more. However, we have opportunities to improve.

We have a responsibility to implement family friendly housing policies that willallow families from all socioeconomic backgrounds to live here and thrive. Thisrequires access to jobs, quality education, cultural diversity, equitable publictransit, plentiful open space, and more to improve the housing options forfamilies in coming decades. To this purpose, the Planning Department is pleasedto have prepared Housing for Families with Children, that explains existingconditions and provides a number of considerations for family friendly housing

policies. I believe it is a crucial part of the conversations we need to havecollectively as a City to address the challenges we continue to face and providenew possible solutions.

I would also like to thank Mayor Edwin Lee and Supervisor Norman Yee for theirongoing support in this and other efforts to grow and strengthen family friendlypolicies in San Francisco. And a special thanks goes to Planning staff for theirhard work and commitment to making San Francisco a more family friendly city.

., r. ~. .

of San Francisco Planning

Member, Board of Supervisors City and County of San Francisco

District 7

NORMAN YEE

City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place , Room 244 • San Francisco, California 94102-4689 • (415) 554-6516

Fax (415) 554-6546 • TDD/TTY (415) 554-5227 • E-mail: [email protected]

San Francisco is best known for its diversity of culture, people, and ideas. It’s what

attracts so many people to visit our beautiful city and what makes it such a wonderful

place to call home. We are seeing record numbers of new residents, yet we are also

seeing many families leave. San Francisco has the lowest number of children of any

major city in US. A mere 18% of households have children compared to the nationwide

average of 29.4%.

The need for action is clear. San Francisco must reverse the trend and attract more

families to live in San Francisco. When we lose our families, we lose part of what makes

San Francisco a strong, vibrant community.

As a City, we have shown a commitment to children, youth and families through the

historic creation of the Children & Youth Fund, investing millions to support wellness,

afterschool, and educational programs. In 2014, the voters of San Francisco also

established the Our Children, Our Families Council, which brings together all City

departments in order to streamline direct services, but also focus on how we can make

our infrastructure—transportation, streets, housing—more efficient for families with

children.

One of the major crises we are facing is housing affordability. Due to the high cost of

living, we are seeing families getting priced out of the City. While this is a large factor,

another issue that hasn’t garnered as much needed attention is that we are not building

housing for new families. In order for us to retain and attract families with children, we

must look at ways we can make San Francisco family-friendly by design. What elements

and attributes make a building fit for families with children? What factors create an

environment that allows families to grow into their homes? That was why I introduced

legislation calling on the Planning Department to develop a policy paper on defining

family-friendly housing.

As a City, we need to promote family-friendly housing and incentivize building more

housing designed for families at all income levels.

This policy paper will discuss:

1. The current trends in San Francisco’s housing stock.

2. The current demographics of family and housing situation.

3. Characteristics of child friendly housing.

4. Ways of improving existing housing developments for families.

5. Case studies from other cities in family friendly housing standards.

Member, Board of Supervisors City and County of San Francisco

District 7

NORMAN YEE

City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place , Room 244 • San Francisco, California 94102-4689 • (415) 554-6516

Fax (415) 554-6546 • TDD/TTY (415) 554-5227 • E-mail: [email protected]

As a San Francisco parent and an educator, I believe that children and families must be

one of our greatest priorities if we want thriving neighborhoods and healthy communities.

This paper is a starting point and I hope that we will think boldly about ways we can

bring these ideas into action. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the incredible

staff at the Planning Department, many of whom are working parents, who have worked

tirelessly on this paper.

Norman Yee

District 7 Supervisor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 02

Definition of a Family ................................................................................................ 03

Chapter I: Demographics ........................................................................................... 06

Chapter II: San Francisco's Housing Stock................................................................. 14

Chapter III: Characteristics of Quality Child-Friendly Housing Stock .......................... 18

Chapter IV: Improving Existing Housing for Families .................................................... 28

Model for a New Old Housing Type, the "Missing Middle" .......................................... 32

Conclusion & Next Steps ................................................................................................... 36

Appendix: What Other Cities are Doing .......................................................................... 38


John Rahaim, Director of Planning

Susan Exline

Anne Brask

Sheila Nickolopoulos

1

INTRODUCTIONSan Francisco’s overall population of children has remained steady for the last 15+ years, but the trend holds that families leave the city as their children reach school age. But as the city’s large population of 20-34 year olds have children and continue to value urban amenities, that trend may reverse. The City has the opportunity to improve the housing options for families in coming decades. While the problem of keeping families of all economic levels in San Francisco is complex and includes a multitude of challenges, such as schools, transportation options, access to parks, public safety, etc., the focus of this briefing is quality affordable housing for families with children.

This briefing, prepared by the San Francisco Planning Department, presents the existing demographics and future projections for families with children in San Francisco in Chapter I. Multiple data sources point to an increase in our population of children, with most growth in eastern and southern San Francisco. Data also reflects the national trend towards increasing income inequality. Middle income families are decreasing while low income and high income populations increase.

Chapter II describes our existing housing stock and devel-opment trends for new housing. Since 2010, 61% of new market rate development has been studios and one-bedroom units, predominantly in larger buildings. Where we fall short in producing new housing for families, more families are living in overcrowded conditions and an increasing number of families are in SROs.

Chapter III looks at how possible changes to the types of new construction could improve housing options for families with children. Understanding that families grow and change over time, the design considerations that can be applied to new housing stock would meet the needs of residents across generations; flexible and adaptable for toddlers, teens, twentysomethings, and beyond. These design considerations fall loosely into three categories: site level characteristics, building characteristics, and unit characteristics. These design ideas are drawn from research on how other cities that have successfully adopted family friendly housing design policies. This chapter also includes the tradeoffs associated with designing family friendly housing, including the potential for increased costs with more amenities. These design ideas are intended for new market rate development. Affordable housing developments are already successfully building with families in mind, such as the Broadway Family Apartments in Chinatown, the Mosaica development in the Mission, and Mercy Family Housing at 10th & Mission.

In Chapter IV, we offer considerations and tradeoffs for modi-fications to existing housing, such as simplifying the process for adding bedrooms or tapping into two large reserves—underutilized ground floors and underbuilt lots — to add units to existing buildings. This can increase the number of units and give families flexibility over time.

This briefing also includes a section on San Francisco’s “Missing Middle” — a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that can help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. An astonishing 72% of the city’s privately owned parcels are zoned for single-family housing (RH-1) and two-unit housing (RH-2). This puts the burden of population growth on the remaining 28% of parcels, which already houses all of our businesses, institutions, and mixed use housing. Through good design, multi-unit or clustered housing types could be accommodated among single-family homes in neighborhoods already rich with family-friendly amenities. We are simply not building housing for families and this mid-size type of housing would help address this need. But the City will have to tackle the significant limita-tions of existing zoning and density controls to begin to build the Missing Middle.

1 http://www.livablecities.org/articles/why-it-important-have-children-living-downtown

JANUARY 17, 2017 FAMILY-FRIENDLY DESIGN WHITEPAPER 2

DEFINITION OF A FAMILY Families come in all shapes and sizes and some include children and others do not. This paper focuses on the households that include children under 18 years of age. These children may live with a parent, a grandparent, or a caretaker.

3

WHY CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO CITIES• Benefit equity. Family friendly housing policies will

allow families from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to live in San Francisco and have access to the jobs, education, and other opportunities that the city provides. This benefits families, communities, and employers.

• Foster sustainable communities and produce public health benefits. Being able to walk, bike, or take transit is a benefit to kids and parents. Compact living is more efficient and allows for a greater diversity in travel mode choices, thus reducing a household’s carbon footprint.

• Create a city for all. In a city with residents of all age groups, public infrastructure created with children in mind results in a higher standard of safety and livability. This means better facilities for pedestrians, more traffic-calming and safer streets, better public transit, and improved parks and open spaces.1

• Benefit cultural diversity. Children are exposed to diverse people and a wide array of cultural activities when living in cities. Being able to interact with people from a range of backgrounds is important for kids from an early age.

• Benefit multi-generational and community supports and resources. Building housing for families allows people to stay in the city once they have children, allowing grandparents, extended family, and close friends to be more connected to these families and their children than they otherwise would be.

• Contribute to community and culture. The presence of people across the age spectrum enriches the experience of those around them and children are no exception. Ensuring that children make up a significant segment of San Francisco’s population provides opportunities for connection and perspective that adults without children in the city otherwise would not have.

1 http://www.livablecities.org/articles/why-it-important-have-children-living-downtown


CHAPTER ONE: DEMOGRAPHICS


FAMILIES IN SAN FRANCISCO TODAYSan Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any large, major US city. Of the 12 largest cities in the United States, San Francisco ranks lowest for the percentage of households that are families with children; a mere 18% of our households have children.2 Comparatively, 29.4% of house-holds in major cities nationwide have children 18 and under. This low percentage holds true from 1980 as well, when only 18.9% of the San Francisco’s households had children under the age of 19. 3

Population Density and Share of Households that are Families with Children < 19 in Large Cities Nationwide

Population

Density per

Square Mile

Total Households

% of Households

that are Families

with Children

Los Angeles, CA 8,092 1,318,168 33.4%

Milwaukee, WI 6,190 230,221 33.4%

New York, NY 27,016 3,109,784 30.5%

Chicago, IL 11,844 1,045,560 29.6%

Baltimore, MD 7,676 249,903 27.9%

Denver, CO 3,915 263,107 24.7%

Portland, OR 4,347 248,546 24.5%

Minneapolis, MN 7,085 163,540 23.3%

Boston, MA 12,787 252,699 22.9%

Washington, DC 9,864 266,707 20.4%

Seattle, WA 7,255 283,510 19.2%

San Francisco, CA 17,169 345,811 18.0%

Population

Density per

Square Mile

Total Households

% of Households

that are Families

with Children

Santa Clara 5,256 604,204 38.4%

Solano 476 141,758 38.1%

Contra Costa 1,300 375,364 37.3%

Alameda 2,048 545,138 34.6%

San Mateo 8,014 257,837 34.1%

Napa 165 48,876 33.8%

Sonoma 270 185,825 30.9%

Marin 476 103,210 29.0%

San Francisco 17,169 345,811 18.0%

Population Density and Share of Households that are Families with Children < 19 in the Bay Area3

San Francisco also has the least children of any Bay Area county by a significant margin.

2 2010 U.S Census Bureau 3 1980 U.S. Census Bureau

7

FAMILY INCOME There has been an overall rise in median family income to $107,700 for a family of four in 2016. And the percentage of high income families is increasing—in 2000, 12.7% of the population made over $150,000 annually; adjusted to 2014 dollars, we saw this increase to 19.3% of the population. The percentage of low income families is also increasing. Since 2000, households making less than $25,000 have increased 7%. The percentage of households making more than $150,000 has also increased by 6%.4 Reflecting national trends, the middle class is diminishing.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

2000

2010

2014

Breakdown of Total Population Annual Income

4 2000 Census; 2010, 2014 American Community Survey: 5 Year. Nominal numbers used for annual income. Note that Consumer Price Index for 2000, 2010, 2014 are 180.2, 227.5, 251.9,

respectively.


RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICSThe racial demographics of San Francisco’s children has shifted in the past 15 years. The percentage of white, multiracial, and Hispanic children has increased, while the percentage of Black and Asian has decreased rapidly. These changes mirror the overall changes in San Francisco’s population over the past 15 years, except for the declining population of Asian children, which diverges from the increasing Asian population.

WHERE FAMILIES LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCOWhile the neighborhoods to the south and west (Bayview, Excelsior, Sunset, Bernal Heights, etc) are generally thought of as the areas with more kids, children are living throughout the City. Because there are fewer total households in the south and western neighborhoods, there is a greater concen-tration of children, i.e. more households with kids, than in other neighborhoods.

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

White (onerace)

Two orMore Races

Hispanic(any race)

Black (onerace)

Asian (onerace)

Other

2000

2010

2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

White (onerace)

Two orMore Races

Hispanic(any race)

Black (onerace)

Asian (onerace)

Other

2000

2010

2014

Composition of Children (0-18) from 2000, 2010, and 2014

Composition of Population from 2000, 2010, and 2014

US Census (2000, 2010), American Community Survey 5-Year (2014)

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

al C

hild

ren

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

al C

hild

ren


2010-2040 POPULATION CHANGES IN SAN FRANCISCOSan Francisco’s total population steadily increased between 2000 and 2010 and then increased dramatically between 2010 and 2016. As Baby Boomers age in urban areas and younger generations come for jobs and urban amenities, San Francisco’s population is expected to grow significantly between 2010 and 2040. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts San Francisco’s total popula-tion will rise to 1,085,730 by 2040.

The large Millennial cohort of 20 to 34 years olds who currently live in San Francisco are just reaching average child-bearing age (33 for women in San Francisco5).Like previous generations, they may elect to move out of the city when they start families. But it could also be that their preference for urban living marks a shift in demographic trends.

National demand among all generations for more urban, walk-able neighborhoods has been increasing. Recently studies by the Urban Land Institute and RCLCO note just how popular these urban amenities are. The RCLCO study found that 77% of Millennials are seeking an urban, walkable lifestyle.6 Many academics and journalists posit that this preference for urban living could potentially be a generational shift while others note that the urban millennial generation has not hit peak childbearing years and that once they do, they may continue previous generational trends of moving out of urban areas after having children.7

Percentage of Population by Generation in San Francisco

5 https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/MCHdocs/Epi/BirthData_SF_2010_Brief_v20130402.pdf3. 6 http://missingmiddlehousing.com/about/demand-market/ 7 http://cityobservatory.org/

kids-in-cities/#4

Either outcome will likely be influenced by the availability or lack of family friendly housing and resources. Regardless of what Millennials do as they start families, they are currently living in cities and driving market demands in urban areas. If the City’s goal is to retain this population and accommodate some of the projected growth in the population of children, we will have to build accordingly.

Projections seem to indicate that there will be some growth in our population of children. SFUSD produces demographic projection every ten years based on their data. The most recent projections, completed in 2010, indicate a continued growth in the population of children in SFUSD, which has been a trend since 2008.

SFUSD bases their projections on anticipated children in the existing housing stock and new housing stock. They project between 3,000-6,000 new students by 2023 from the existing housing stock. SFUSD anticipates that by 2040, new house-holds will increase the public school population by between 7,000 and 14,000 students. SFUSD anticipates that these students will live in the neighborhoods where we expect to see most of our new housing development, i.e. along the eastern side of San Francisco and in the Park Merced area.

11

POPULATION PROJECTIONSIn addition to data collected by the US Census Bureau, data from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) is used throughout this white paper. SFUSD data provides informa-tion on children in the Transitional Kindergarten program (ages 4-5) thru 12th grade (ages 17-18).

SFUSD’s detailed data on students in public schools includes information on where students live at the unit level. This information provides us a snapshot on where kids are living who attend SFUSD. Using this information, SFUSD can calculate their yield rates, i.e. project how many students they can expect to attend SFUSD. Their low per-unit yield for market rate units is 0.01. That is, for every 100 market rate unit constructed, they expect to see one additional student in SFUSD. New below-market-rate units, either inclusionary or in 100% affordable developments, have higher yield rates, inclusionary is 0.25 per unit and stand-alone affordable buildings are 0.5 students per unit. Their high yield rate is 0.20 for market-rate units and inclusionary and stand-alone affordable buildings are projected to yield the same in both low and high yield scenarios.

By 2040, SFUSD anticipates seeing the most growth in their student population from children living in eastern and southern San Francisco, as well as the Park Merced area. Most of this growth is due to significant new housing development planned for these areas of the city. This calculation takes into consideration where existing students live, the predicted turnover rate, and expected population growth.

ABAG provides projections for the entire child population under 18. Projections show that while the 5-17 population grows at a more rapid rate, both show a steady increase to 2060. 50,900 0-4 year olds are expected to live in San Francisco by 2060, compared to the 35,700 in 2010.

Projected SFUSD K-12 Enrollment from Existing Housing Stock

530005400055000560005700058000590006000061000620006300064000

Proj

ecte

d K-

12 E

nrol

lmen

t fro

m E

xist

ing

Hou

sing

higher end

lower end

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

Proj

ecte

d K-

12 E

nrol

lmen

t fro

m N

ew

Hous

ing

Stoc

k.20 yield in market ratehousing

low yield

HIGH YIELD

LOW YIELD

Projected SFUSD K-12 Enrollment from New Housing Stock

0.20 yield in market rate housing

LOW YIELD

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Popu

latio

n

Year

0-4

5-17

ABAG Population Projections for 0-17


Projected SFUSD K-12 Enrollment from Existing Housing Stock

HIGH YIELD

LOW YIELD

Projected SFUSD K-12 Enrollment from New Housing Stock

CHAPTER TWO: SAN FRANCISCO'S HOUSING STOCK

ABAG Population Projections for 0-17

13

SAN FRANCISCO'S HOUSING STOCKThe availability and affordability of housing will be a signifi-cant factor in shaping San Francisco’s population changes in coming decades. If San Francisco wants to maintain, or even increase, the proportion of families with children, we need to first understand what our housing stock looks like and where it both succeeds and fails to meet the needs of families. What follows is a description of our existing housing stock and development trends for new housing, as well as the opportu-nities and tradeoffs of creating more family friendly housing.

Two significant housing stock issues impact San Francisco’s families: affordability and unit size. Families need more affordable housing options, but they also need larger units to accommodate children and sometimes multiple generations. While more space would accommodate families, larger units are more expensive. Some considerations, which are detailed in following chapters, that might be able to produce afford-able units that are right-sized to families:

• More economical shared bathrooms, as opposed to en-suite bathrooms

• More smaller bedrooms would give family members privacy without significantly increasing the square footage of the unit

• Including guest suites in a building to provide residents with the room to host visiting family and friends, without needing to have a spare bedroom

Just as additional space comes with a cost, so do amenities. The City will want to prioritize amenities, as each in-unit amenity (such as washer/dryer) and building amenity (like minimum play space), adds to the cost. For example, where good public amenities are available, such as playgrounds and parks, relaxing building requirements for open space could help decrease unit cost. More discussions of these tradeoffs is included in Chapter V, which talks about specific design characteristics of family friendly housing.

DECREASING AFFORDABILITYAffordability is the single most pressing issues for families and all San Franciscans. The vast majority of both ownership and rental properties are not affordable to families. Based on prices in September 2015, 91% of all home sale listings in San Francisco were either not affordable or less than two bedrooms, making a mere 9% of the housing stock on the market family friendly to those earning the median family income.8 Based on the 2016 median income for a family of four of $107,700,9 a family could afford a home priced at $417,949.10 But in summer 2016, the median sale price of a two-bedroom home in San Francisco is $1,246,500.11 The rental market is equally hostile to the needs of families: the median asking rent in May 2016 was $5,050 for a two bedroom unit and a family of four earning the median income can afford $2,749 in rent for a two-bedroom unit.12

The high cost of housing leads to numerous troublesome effects including overwhelming rent burden (as more of a household’s income is needed to go toward rent); over-crowding as more people squeeze into smaller affordable units to share costs; an increase in workers per household needed to pay mortgage or meet monthly rent; increased commuter traffic from workers who cannot afford to live in the city; and an increase in the homeless population.

8 http://www.governing.com/gov-data/other/family-housing-affordability-in-cities-report.html#calculation 9 http://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/2016_AMI_IncomeLimits-

SanFranHMFA.pdf 10 http://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/2016_AMI_InclusionaryPurchaseCalcs_SanFranHMFA.pdf 11 http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-

California/market-trends/ 12 http://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/2016_AMI_RentLimits-SanFranHMFA_ForMOHsf.pd


HOUSING STOCK TRENDSUnit size is also an issue for families because larger house-hold sizes need more bedrooms. While we continue to refine our data on bedroom counts, best estimates are that 28% of units built before 2005 are two bedroom units and 33% of units are three or more bedrooms.13

While data on the number of bedrooms in both older and newer stock is difficult to gather, the trends seem to indicate that older housing units have more bedrooms and are larger than newer units. Between January 2005 and June 2015, 61% of the 23,202 units of new market rate development has been studios and one-bedroom units, predominantly in larger buildings. New market rate housing produced rela-tively few units with three or more bedrooms.

13 San Francisco Housing Database. It is worth noting that San Francisco lacks reliable data on the bedroom composition of units. Although this data is tracked by the Assessor’s Office, it

is often inaccurate. In Victorian and Edwardian units, double parlors or formal dining rooms are often used as bedrooms. Changes in bedroom count due to remodels are often not captured

as well.

As market rate housing produces more smaller units, afford-able housing (also referred to as below-market-rate) caters much more to families. Of the 529 affordable housing proj-ects built between 2011 and 2015, 53% (280) were family units with two or more bedrooms. But the production of these affordable family units doesn’t compensate for the the smaller units being produced at market rate because the income requirements for affordable housing are only appli-cable to some families and because 280 units of affordable family housing over five years is insufficient to meet demand.

Percentage of Units Built Before and After 2005

15

MISMATCH OF PEOPLE AND HOUSINGOnly 30% of 3+ bedroom units in San Francisco are occupied by families with children. The remaining 70% of these larger units are occupied by seniors (25%), couples or families without children (25%), single people (3%), and unrelated individuals (13%).

In economic terms, this is a mismatch between people and spaces, supply and demand. 14 As of 2013, 40% of San Francisco families lived in 3+ bedroom units; 33% in two bedroom units; 15% in one bedroom units, and 10% in studios or Single Room Occupancy Hotels (SROs). There is little research or analysis for why this happens in San Francisco. Further work could explore who is part of this 70% living in larger units and why they are living in larger units. They could be empty nesters, about to become seniors, or younger couples, with the possibility of having children in the future. For some it could be that Prop 13 and rent control actually make it less expensive to stay in larger units than to move and downsize. Some may prefer living with roommates to living alone. For others, they simply want more space. There are likely other reasons as well. But it would be informative to have a better understanding of how much is personal choice versus economic necessity, and where policy can better help align our supply of larger units with the needs of families.

One result of lack of affordability and availability of appro-priate unit size is overcrowding. Overcrowding, defined by

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as greater than 1.01 people per habitable room, is an issue in San Francisco. Severe overcrowding is defined as greater than 1.51 people per habitable room. The neighbor-hoods that have the most households living in overcrowded conditions are Chinatown, Visitacion Valley, Downtown/Civic Center, and Oceanview. The situation in Chinatown is particu-larly bad, with 24% of households living in overcrowded conditions. The neighborhoods with the most people living in uncrowded households are Twin Peaks, Diamond Heights/Glen Park, Presidio Heights, and Noe Valley.15

Families with children are consistently the majority of over-crowded homes in San Francisco. Since 2005, the number of overcrowded households that are families with children has remained steady, making up about 26,000 of the households in the city or 50% of the total households in the City that are overcrowded.

Families living in Single Room Occupancy buildings (SROs) are an extreme example of overcrowding. A recent report by the SRO Families United Collaborative, 2015 SRO Families Report Living in the Margins: An analysis and Census of San Francisco Families Living in SROs, highlights the severe chal-lenges facing families living in SROs. There are an estimated 699 families living in SROs, 457 of which are in Chinatown. These families are crowded into one-room, most of which lack basic necessities like full bathrooms and kitchenettes. These families are our city’s working poor and have been on waitlists for housing for sometimes up to ten years.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms

San Francisco

Single Person

Senior

Other Arrangement - UnrelatedIndividuals

Other Arrangement - UnmarriedCouple Living Together

Family without Children

Family with Children

Household Types by Bedroom, 2013

14 Data Analysis from American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample maintained by IPUMS USA and the American Community Survey pretabulated data from American Factfinder

15 http://www.sustainablecommunitiesindex.org/city_indicators/view/49


CHAPTER THREE: CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITY CHILD-FRIENDLY HOUSING STOCK

17

CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD-FRIENDLY HOUSINGBased on our research of other cities (detailed in the Appendix) and data gathered through focus groups, the Planning Department identified a number of characteris-tics that benefit families with children. The majority of the following characteristics are specific to the needs of families, while some qualities enhance living in multifamily units. The reason for also including these latter characteristics, for example qualities such as daylight and noise, is to consider ways of potentially enhancing our multifamily stock and providing a viable alternative to costly single family homes or moving to the suburbs.

The two key challenges for families are affordability and size. This chapter discusses design characteristics of family friendly housing that loosely fall into three categories: site level characteristics (parking & vehicle storage, childcare, access to schools); building characteristics (outdoor & play spaces, supervision, outlook, noise control); and unit characteristics (daylight and ventilation, space, flexibility).

The challenge of integrating these design characteristics into new housing is how to do it in ways that do not make our housing even more unaffordable for the very families we are trying to house. In all the following sections we should consider the tradeoffs of how design elements or ameni-ties are added or incentivized. The characteristics in this section could also be considered to be part of a menu so that depending on project and site characteristics different features could be included.

SITE-LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS

Getting Around: Transit, Carsharing, Parking and Bicycle Storage

Many San Francisco families are challenged by coordinating access to workplaces for adult members of the household with school and daycare access for children, to say nothing of frequent errands like grocery shopping or trips to the library. In our fairly dense, urban environment, it is challenging to use individual automobiles that must be parked (even if tempo-rarily) at home, school, work, and for shopping. Parents need multiple options—transit, car share, private automobile, or bikes—for local and longer-distance trips.

Providing off-street parking comes with a high cost: it consumes a lot of space that could be used for other things, such as additional housing units and community amenities, and it requires expensive engineering to construct the open space needed for parking garages. In larger buildings, it also requires more expensive concrete construction. A parking space adds an average of $38,000 per unit but depending on location can be up to $100,000 per unit.16 Off-street parking has social costs too: it inhibits making great and safe family-friendly streets due to the higher frequency of curb cuts and cars crossing the sidewalk. Parking also makes it difficult to provide direct access from low-floor residences to at-grade play areas.

While SF Muni and BART have increased and improved service within San Francisco, it is a challenge to make the many daily trips to work, school, daycare, or activities by public trans-portation. A survey that is currently being conducted by the Mayor’s Office and the Transportation Authority will provide us with additional data to help understand the commute patterns and needs of families with school age children.17

Bicycling and car sharing are two alternatives to single occu-pancy vehicles and public transportation that are gaining popularity. They both allow the flexibility of a personal vehicle without the burden of individual ownership. In a city where bike infrastructure is growing rapidly, large cargo bikes have become a feasible and popular way to transport children. Unfortunately, standard bike racks are not large enough for these bikes, and bicycle storage is as critical as vehicle parking in an urban environment.

Another alternative to owning a car in San Francisco is taking advantage of the carshare and rideshare programs and taxis in the City. Car-share programs allow anyone to borrow a car to run errands, go on day-trips, or drop-off/pick-up kids from school. Car sharing programs allow and even encourage households to reduce private vehicle usage and ownership.

1

16 http://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-create-one-parking-space-in-sf 17 https://usfca.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe1/form/SV_a5Jr7WCyPspvuFT


A U.C. Berkeley study showed that 30% of City CarShare members had sold one or more vehicles and two-thirds of members decided not to buy a vehicle due to availability of car sharing.18 A challenge to the use of car-sharing programs is the frequent need to “chain” trips with several links in a journey. A parent’s morning might include dropping off a child at school, running an errand, and continuing on to their workplace. Current car share models in San Francisco does not accommodate these types of trips, but models in other cities, such as Car 2 Go demonstrate that such a model could poten-tially add flexibility to families who need these types of trips. Other alternatives include taxis and ridesharing programs. A kid-centered shuttle service was recently developed and is being studied to determine its potential costs and benefits and its wider applicability to potentially reducing drive alone school related trips.

There are three family focused Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures included in the Planning Department’s TDM options for new projects. If included in development, these options give projects points towards reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and decreasing envi-ronmental impacts under CEQA. This is one way the City is already incentivizing family friendly transportation options.

1. A new development can either provide on-site secure location for storage of personal car seats, strollers, and cargo bicycles or other large bicycles. Personal car seat storage should be located near off-street car-share parking space)s), or provide one shopping cart for every 10 residential units and one cargo bicycle for every 20 Dwelling Units. All equipment shall be kept clean and well maintained

2. The Development Project shall include an on-site childcare facility to reduce commuting distances between households, places of employment, and childcare. The on-site childcare facility must comply with all state and City requirements, including provisions within the San Francisco Planning Code.

3. For residential Development Projects that meet the dwelling unit mix requirements in Planning Code Section 207.6(c)(2), a property owner shall include all of the following measures:

CSHARE-1: Car-Share Parking and Membership Option D or E; AND

FAMILY-1: Family TDM Amenities, Options A and B.

18 http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/02/does-car-sharing-reduce-your-driving/

Questions:

Could the City set aside more spaces for car sharing services on on-street locations? Could on-street carsharing spaces be provided adjacent to projects that reduce or eliminate parking in their projects?

Should bicycle parking requirements include accommodation for more bikes and for larger cargo bikes?

How can transit better serve families?

How can the City better coordinate with the school district and neighborhood schools to accommodate trips?

Photo Credit: Bicycle Coalition

Photo Credit: Bicycle Coalition

19

CHILDCARE

For fulltime working parents with young children, childcare in San Francisco is both expensive and difficult to find. The recent increase in housing prices is increasing the cost and limiting the availability of childcare.19 Our current Planning approvals process combined with state licensing require-ments create several barriers to more childcare.

One challenge is San Francisco’s current requirement of a Conditional Use authorization for childcare facilities serving 13 or more children. In addition, California state licensing for dedicated childcare centers include physical requirements of upwards of 100 square feet per child; substantial additional plumbing (toilets, lavatories, drinking fountains, and sinks); specific fire safety measures; and a minimum of 75 square feet per child of outdoor play space for the exclusive use of the childcare center during hours of operation.

Family (in-home) childcare have less onerous spatial require-ments and may be desirable in family-friendly developments. These are occasionally incorporated into affordable housing rental developments like 1180 Fourth Street, developed and operated by Mercy Housing. Designing and marketing a unit that meets the needs of an in-home childcare unit could provide much-needed space at a fraction of the cost of a larger facility. Such units should include: combined living/dining rooms with excellent sightlines throughout, including kitchen, bathroom, and diaper changing area; ground-floor or elevator-access location fully accessible, including bathtub for bathing as required; and thoughtful access for children’s families who live outside the development while maintaining a secure environment for other residents. Recent legislation initiated by Supervisor Yee and adopted earlier this year ( Board File 150793/2-16) allows for new developments to provide this space in-lieu of the childcare impact fee.

Questions:

Should San Francisco make childcare facilities be permitted uses in most zoning districts and eliminate the Conditional Use requirements?

Are there other ways in which to ensure adequate childcare resources?

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS

With so few public school bus routes, almost all younger chil-dren must be accompanied by an adult to and from school. San Francisco households with children frequently are located at some distance (as measured by miles, but particularly by time) from schools and workplaces.

The San Francisco Safe Routes to School program aims to increase bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety around schools; to decrease traffic congestion around schools; to reduce childhood obesity by increasing number of children walking and biking to school; and to improve air quality, community safety and security, and community involvement around school. The program is led by the Department of Public Health in conjunction with the police, school district, MTA, CTA, SF Environment, YMCA, and the bicycle coalition. This year, it will expand to 35 elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools.

The Planning Department’s Green Connections Plan includes a network of streets designated as walking routes, intended to connect schools, parks, and other facilities via safe, walk-able, bikable streets. The Plan was completed in 2014, and the first pilot project is under way.

Questions:

How can the Planning Department and city agencies work more closely with SFUSD to ensure adequate schools within walking distance, especially in areas with an increasing population of children?

Are there opportunities to add space, including rooftop green space, to these existing school facilities, particularly are school campuses are upgraded through the bond process?

2 3

19 http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Growing-day-care-squeeze-as-providers-priced-out-6732281.php


BUILDING-AND LOT-SCALE CHARACTERISTCS

OUTDOOR & PLAY SPACE

The design and programming of efficient and high quality outdoor open space is an opportunity to support families and their children. Nature and outdoor play are basic physiolog-ical and mental health needs for people of all ages. Greenery and vegetation should be maximized to give all residents adequate outdoor play and open space. There should be a common space large enough to accommodate adults without children and families with children.

Outdoor space must be built to stand up to wear and tear. Plantings must be sufficient in size and quality to withstand rough and tumble children’s play. Outdoor areas should be designed with interesting and safe materials, sunlight access, and plentiful vegetation. While a roof deck could potentially be designed as a playspace, the design of this space is critical and it would need to be shielded from the wind and also allow both sun and shade access so that the space will be well used.

San Francisco allows required residential open space to be included either in common areas of a building or privately (such as decks assigned to a particular residence). For developments with four or more units, the greatest required amount of privately-provided open space is 100 square feet per unit. In many of our taller and denser neighborhoods, the requirement is 60 square feet per unit while some of our densest neighborhoods only require 36 square feet per unit.

Questions:

Could the existing open space requirements be more specific in requiring a certain percentage of vegetation or green space?

Should open space be more/less programmed?

Can roofs be designed for safe open space for all ages?

Are there qualitative characteristics that give preference for a shared courtyard or rear yard versus private street-facing balconies?

Given the encouragement and opportunity to design rooftops and other podium spaces as livable ecosystems with usable open space, should the Planning Code be amended to require a certain percentage of vegetated area on usable roof decks?

SUPERVISION

Children are safer and parents more comfortable when chil-dren’s outdoor play areas are visible from adult spaces. In low-density environments with single-family homes and two or three family stacked flats, such supervision is often easily accommodated from the kitchen to the backyard. Higher-density environments like podium apartment buildings and towers make such supervision a challenge in several ways. Upper-floor units are simply too far from the ground or even a podium courtyard to achieve satisfactory parental oversight from within the unit. In addition, few kitchens have windows in recent higher-density construction, so a parent cannot take care of cleaning and such responsibilities while maintaining visual and aural access to play space. Lastly, most higher-density homes are located in double-loaded configurations (on both sides of a central hallway), so half or more of the units do not overlook the shared open space (backyard).

Questions:

Should larger units in larger developments be located on lower floors facing secure common open space?

Is supervision of outdoor play less critical when sufficient private open space is attached to a unit, such as a balcony or terrace?

Could common open space be more distributed throughout the development?

21

21

ACCESS TO LIGHT AND NATURE

Views of trees and the natural environment improve health and wellbeing by providing visual relief. Many homes in denser parts of the city face streets, yards, and courts that are mostly or entirely paved. It is more difficult to grow trees and plants on top of structures (such as parking/commercial podiums or on roofs) than in natural ground. Where units face one another, a certain amount of separation should be provided to allow each unit to enjoy their shared outlook.

The interagency Better Streets Plan (BSP) and the PUC’s Stormwater Management Requirements (SMR) address adding trees and vegetation to our public streets (BSP) and within properties including podium courtyards and rooftops (SMR), primarily within medium- to large-scale new developments.

The Planning Code requires that all dwelling units in all zoning use districts face an open area (Section 140). This requirement must only be met for a single room in each dwelling: other rooms may open into light wells or use “borrowed” light and air through another room. Generally, an open space at least 20 to 25 feet in any dimension meets this requirement (the minimum dimension can increase in taller buildings). The code does not further regulate the character of this space, such as required plantings.

Questions:

Should we have minimum standards for the landscaping of rear yards and courts at whatever level they occur? How do we balance required landscape with child-friendly play areas? What are the cost implications of such requirements?

What are the essential qualities of a good outlook? How are these balanced with affordability needs?

Should we re-examine requirements for outlooks onto inner courtyards different than outer courtyards?

Do these vary depending on proximity of the residence to a large park or body of water?

NOISE

The closeness of urban living requires detailed design to maintain privacy and comfort in each unit. Research indicates that satisfaction with high-density living is very dependent on visual and acoustic privacy, and it often a reason families prefer quieter suburban living. Lack of privacy will increase a person’s perception of crowding and will discourage many from urban living. Acoustic privacy should be achieved between rooms in a unit, between units, and between build-ings in a development. Common walls between units and around shared areas should have a sound class of 55 deci-bels and should be enforced at the design stage of project review.20 This would create additional privacy and comfort within each unit.

The Building Code regulates airborne Sound Transmission Class (STC) for both partitions (walls) and floor/ceiling assem-blies and also structure-borne Impact Insulation Class (IIC) for floor/ceiling assemblies. IIC measures the attenuation of impact noise like footfalls, which are the most frequent noise complaint in multifamily buildings.

Densely-developed urban areas like San Francisco include significant sources of environmental noise from outside a residence, too. These can be joyous sounds of children at a playground, or the noxious noise freeways. Regulations exist that preclude operable windows to achieve ventilation where the environmental noises are too great, providing instead ducted ventilation and high-STC windows.

Questions:

Should family-friendly housing include higher (more demanding) STC or IIC standards?

Are Environmental/CEQA reviews on Noise too strict for playgrounds and spaces for children?

Should incentives be given for family-friendly housing in areas that do not have high levels of environmental noise?

3 4

20 https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/ehsNoise/GuidelinesNoiseEnforcement.pdf


FLEXIBLE COMMUNITY SPACE

In dense urban environments where families (and others) may not have the space to host meetings, dinners, birthday parties, or other groups, an indoor flexible space would be a common amenity for families with children. Common indoor space can also create community interactions and support a neighborhood feeling among residents.

In addition, in small urban apartments, there is no space to repair bikes, work on science projects, or build weekend projects. A shared hobby room or utility space with a utility sink and lockers for tool storage would give all residents a dedicated tinkering space. Many current developments include common spaces such as these, though they are not directly marketed to families.

These flexible community spaces should be designed with regard to the anticipated age mix of residents, the ability of management to supervise them, and the availability of similar amenities in accessible, nearby community facilities. Adaptable spaces allow for many different accommodations in response to demographic shifts, instead of targeting one audience.

In stacked multifamily buildings, an amenity room might be on a different floor or even a different building in larger developments, either of which presents challenges to super-vising one’s child. In such situations, a generous common hallway can serve as an informal common playspace for young children to play. This arrangement will be better for all inhabitants if, as mentioned above, family-sized units are grouped together.

BUILDING STORAGE SPACE

Bulk storage for each dwelling unit can help families with large items, such as strollers, wheeled toys, suitcases, sports equipment, and holiday decorations. Preferably all but at least 30 square feet should be located in a separate storage room within the building at or near the entry. Storage space should be easily accessible and in a secure area of the building.

While space is at a premium, the types of storage space mentioned above could easily be tucked away in the ground floor of the building and could be swapped out for other amenities currently provided. Designers should look for opportunities inside of units too--often soffit space above bathrooms and kitchens in higher ceiling apartments, under stairs, etc. Although it would be ideal to have storage space for each floor, there may be cost implications to this design.

Questions

Should we require a specific amount of storage in in the building versus in individual units? Is there a preference in storage type?

Should existing parking requirements for cars and bike parking be made more flexible to accommodate storage?

5 6

23

CONCENTRATION OF FAMILY UNITS

When there is a mix of households with children and house-holds without children in a building, larger family-friendly households could be grouped together. Grouping of similar households could result in fewer complaints about different activities and noise. This concentration also gives children peers to play with; encourages a sense of community; and supports the provision of adequate outdoor and indoor space and amenities for families with children.

Questions

Should we concentrate larger units adjacent to the courtyards to better achieve both access and lower the cost?

ON-SITE LAUNDRY

Onsite laundry is an important amenity for families. It reduces travel time and increases family time. Onsite laundry can also increase interaction between units, particularly if it opens to a shared courtyard or other common-use space. Laundry facilities on each floor are more convenient for families than laundry in a basement or other remote location, but may also increase the cost of housing.

Questions

Does San Francisco want to require on-site in-unit or same-floor laundry facilities, particularly for 2+ bedroom units?

GUEST SUITE

A guest suite in a multiunit building would give families a place to host guests or grandparents. Guest suites would be a shared amenity available to any building resident. In San Francisco, one new development, 100 Van Ness, included a guest suite, but it faced challenges with code compliance and opposition from the hotel industry.

Providing guest suites presents enforcement challenges. In a city where Airbnb is popular for visitors, the guest suite may create an undesired effect of others besides family’s guests staying there unless strict regulations were enforced by the Rental or Home Owners Association.

Questions

Could guest suites provide a viable option in certain loca-tions or are these types of suites unnecessary given the large market for sites such as Airbnb and other shared housing sites?

UNIT CONSIDERATIONS

DAYLIGHT AND VENTILATION

Natural light is incredibly important for people’s health, well-being, and enjoyment of a home. Daylight illuminates spaces without excessive artificial light, saving energy and costs. A home and room face many design challenges when consid-ering the orientation, size of windows, depth of rooms, and ceiling height of each space; each affecting the amount of daylight in a space and presenting opportunities for a family to experience rooms differently.

Natural ventilation significantly improves air quality and is a major factor for one’s health and wellbeing, and especially for the health of children. Inner portions of homes without cross-ventilation can become stagnant and even moldy. Multiple inlet and outlet areas in a unit allow for better flow of air with cross ventilation through a space. Well-considered light wells that open to the exterior both at the bottom and top can be used to help provide cross-ventilation where it might not otherwise be achievable.

The Planning Code includes exposure requirements for minimum access to daylight and air for each unit, generally a minimum of 25 feet from the face of the window to the nearest parallel wall beyond. These exposure requirements must only be met in a single room within each home, not every room. The Building Code has minimum requirements for natural light and ventilation, but allows them to be met using artificial light and mechanical ventilation, respectively. The Building Code also allows bedrooms and other rooms to use “borrowed light” through an interior opening to a room with a window, rather than requiring windows for each room. Neither code requires windows for kitchens or bathrooms. San Francisco allows bathroom and kitchen ventilation to be provided purely through mechanical means, using ducted vents alone rather than windows.

The San Francisco Health Code requires that homes in areas where outdoor air contains a certain threshold of particles per million provide ventilation using MERV 4(?) filters and not open windows. This filtration requirement reduces access to San Francisco’s winds to quickly dissipate odors and provide fresh air through open windows.

7

8

9

1


Questions:

Are certain spaces in units more important in terms of access to daylight?

Should second/third bedrooms be allowed to use borrowed light to incentivize them, but not for first bedrooms?

Should outdoor ventilation be required for new units and retrofitted for old?

Should access to fresh air in a unit be improved?

Should operable windows with child safety locks be required?

Should incentives be given for family-friendly housing in areas that do not have high levels of airborne environmental pollution?

UNIT STORAGE SPACE

Units should have enough space to accommodate various family uses and storage that allows everyone to live comfortably. The creative design of individual units could include built-in storage and shelving for linens and other household items.

Questions:

Should we require a specific amount of storage in individual storage units versus in the building? Is there a preference in storage type?

TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS

Some cities, such as Vancouver, require a minimum size for two bedroom units because the units being produced were not sized for families. Implementation of this requirement in San Francisco would be difficult due to the volume of our projects. In addition, initial indicators in San Francisco do not lead to the same need to set a minimum size. With a few exceptions, the market here has been producing adequately sized two-bedroom units ranging 700-1,100 square feet. However, this size should continue to be monitored to ensure that the few exceptions do not shift market trends. Requiring minimum sized units could rule out smaller two bedrooms that would potentially accommodate lower income families that would prefer smaller units near jobs and schools than larger homes with longer commutes.

Research indicates that crowded environments can nega-tively affect children’s social adjustment. Several findings from studies found a sharp increase in children’s misbehav-iors when they live in homes with more than 2.3 residents per room.21 Family units require a minimum of two bedrooms to provide enough privacy and space for each family member. Given San Francisco’s trend towards smaller families, the two bedroom unit is considered adequate for most families, but as discussed above, the need for some three-bedroom units will continue.

Larger units are more expensive, and the three-bedroom units provided in new housing are often located on the top floor and billed as luxury penthouse units. Vancouver is considering requiring that three-bedroom units be located in lower parts of the building. These units could be located off the courtyard and could therefore potentially be more affordable and more family-friendly.

Requirements for affordable family housing from funding streams such as the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) are an interesting model for considering what families need. CTCAC requires “large family housing” applications to include at least 25% three-bedroom units or larger, and at least an additional 25% two bedrooms and larger. Four-bedroom and larger units must have at minimum two full bathrooms. These requirements also stipulate developments of 20 units or more to include outdoor play/recreational facilities suitable and available to all tenants, for children of all ages, and to provide interior common spaces scaled to the size of the development. For example, 31 to 60 units must provide at least 1,000 square feet of total common space while 61 to 100 units must provide at least 1,400 square feet. In addition, on-site laundry facilities (or individual laundries) must be provided, and all units must include a dishwasher.

2

3

21 http://www.courtyardhousing.org/downloads/ChildFriendlyHousing.pdf

25

Large open space requirements could raise costs for a development and drive up the price of the housing. It's important to remember that CTCAC is trying to make sure publicly subsidized affordable housing meets some minimum standards that will work throughout the state. San Francisco is the densest city in the state with some of the most extreme housing market pressures and should likely deviate when considering what standards would work best for its context.

Questions:

Could design recommendations be included at Preliminary Project Assessment level for two and three bedroom unit design?

Should we incentivize the creation of family housing that meets some of the standards such as the CTCAC require-ments? Does this model provide ideas to consider in San Francisco?

Is there a need to require a minimum size for two-bedroom units?

FLEXIBILITY

Families’ space needs vary over time. Very young children can share bedrooms, but as they get older, children of different genders typically want separate bedrooms. Extended family members may join the household, perhaps to care for chil-dren or to be cared for themselves. Families may also wish to host overnights guests at their home, especially in the fifth most-expensive hotel market in the US.22 Families benefit from flexible spaces that can be used as a guest room, study, or den.

One strategy to address affordability that is being pursued in various urban living situations is having an independently-accessed living suite that can be locked-off from the remainder of the home. Much like a connecting hotel room, this might mean a room in an apartment building that has an independent door to the hallway, but also can open to the adjacent home. Equipped with a full bathroom and a kitchenette, such a space might first be used as a separate rental studio apartment, later serve as a child’s bedroom, and after the children have left home, provide a place for an ailing family elder to live in close proximity to family who can care for them. (In low-density neighborhoods, the approach can be a freestanding secondary structure, variously called a rear cottage, granny flat, or accessory dwelling unit.) Alternatively, one or more of these small, flexible-use spaces could be provided as part of a larger development.

Questions:

Should San Francisco follow Vancouver’s lead and incentivize or require indoor common spaces?

What are other important adaptable spaces?

Should family-friendly units be located together to allow parents and guardians to share child supervision more easily?

Should we pursue allowing some type of lock-off suite?

4

22 http://www.hotel-price-index.com/2014/fall/us/chapter-2/


CHAPTER FOUR: IMPROVING EXISTING HOUSING FOR FAMILIES

27

Modifications to existing housing stock could improve housing options for families. For example, simplifying the approval and permitting process for adding bedrooms would give families flexibility to grow where they are already settled. Tapping into two large reserves -- underutilized ground floors and underbuilt lots -- to add units to existing buildings would increase housing options without changing the fabric of the city’s neighborhoods.

SIMPLIFY MINOR EXPANSIONS

The flexibility to add bedrooms to existing housing stock would give families additional space as they grow and shrink over time. Changes to existing processes could allow minor modifications and expansions of buildings into rear yards. In addition, streamlining the Planning and DBI approvals processes, especially regarding minor modifications, could reduce costs and allow greater flexibility for expansions while still maintaining open space and rear yards.

In 2014, the Mayor’s Housing Task Force Working Group recommended exploring the feasibility and benefits of removing neighborhood notification requirements for certain minor permit scopes. These and other potential changes that reexamine code requirements would allow families to expand or alter their homes without an extensive process. Relieving an applicant of added time and process could result in more flexible and less expensive family units.

The Planning Code has maintained strict regulations on converting ground floor space in residential buildings to habitable rooms (bedroom, living room, bathroom, etc.). Known as Rooms Down controls, these regulations aim to prevent illegal units in buildings that are already at or beyond allowable density. Combinations of bathrooms, laundry facili-ties, and wet bars are controlled to prevent the possibility of sectioning off the lower floor as a separate dwelling unit.

However, new legislation to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in buildings throughout San Francisco is now in conflict with these strict Rooms Down controls. In the light of these new ADU programs (discussed further below), the Rooms Down controls may be unnecessary in their current form. Further relaxing these controls would ease the process for owners who want to add new bedrooms as their families grow.

PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR DOWNSIZING

To attract and keep families in San Francisco, allow them to grow, and to accommodate multi-generational households, the city will need more two or three bedroom units. While the City can require the building of multi-bedroom units in new development, it cannot monitor who lives in these units.

As only 30% of existing three or more bedroom units are occupied by families with children,23 further analysis should look closer at the existing housing stock and the myriad reasons we do not see the availability of this larger housing stock for our larger households. While many people want to continue to live in larger homes, some might want to move out or downsize, but simply do not have options. Proposition 13 and rent control create barriers to moving. And for homeowners who purchased their homes decades ago and wish to sell, much of their gain may be lost to capital gains taxes upon sale. Therefore they will not be able to access the cash tied up in their home unless they move to a less costly city. Exploring options for greater flexibility here will assist both existing homeowners and larger households, especially families with children. Policy and programmatic solutions to explore may include additional ways to support programs such as the recently initiated Home Match24 and options for no or low interest loans to add accessory dwelling units or junior accessory units in single-family homes.

23 Data Analysis from American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample maintained by IPUMS USA and the American Community Survey pretabulated data from American Factfinder

24 http://hoodline.com/2016/08/sf-home-match-program-aims-to-pair-low-income-renters-homeowners-with-extra-rooms


CREATE MORE HOMES WITHIN EXISTING HOUSING STOCK

Existing San Francisco residential buildings have two largely untapped reserves: underutilized ground floors and underbuilt lots. Tens of thousands of houses and apartment buildings have ground floors that are given over to parking and storage. Such existing spaces can often be converted to housing that is friendly to families because it is on the ground floor (easy to get children and strollers in and out) and it can open to rear yards for play. Properties that can provide hori-zontal and/or vertical additions and still respect neighboring development patterns may be considered “underbuilt” lots. Two policy areas are related to achieving a greater number of family-friendly homes within existing housing stock.

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Underused spaces in existing residential buildings can be converted to new units. However, most residential proper-ties in the city have been controlled by density limits that restrict the number of units per parcel. If those buildings already have the allowed number of units, or exceed it in the case of buildings constructed prior to current zoning, unused spaces could not be legally converted to a new unit. Also known as secondary units, ADUs are encour-aged by State law.

Since 2014, the City has embarked on multiple efforts to allow accessory dwelling units to be added beyond the density limits. ADUs were initially only allowed in the Castro (Ordinance 30-15) and effective September 3, 2016 the City will allow ADUs citywide.25 This is a major turning point from when the Planning Code imposed restrictions on creating new units in buildings through Rooms Down expansions.

The current construction costs of adding an ADU could break even with the rental market in about 4 to 5 years. The additional revenue would support the household financially with an increase in their disposable income.

ADUs offer many benefits to families with children. Families living together in one building, but independent units, could provide much needed support to each other. A young family with newborn children could significantly cut on childcare costs by having grandparents living in an ADU in the same building. Similarly, households can provide care to their elderly parents or disabled family members if they lived in an ADU only a flight of stairs away. A senior household can move into an ADU on their ground floor for easier accessibility (no stairs), and smaller

25 The legislation allows the unlimited construction of ADUs within buildings that are five units or more and will cap new units at no more than one unit in buildings that are four units or

less. Each new unit constructed would be allowed to be built, or expanded, within a building’s existing envelope. All ADUs would be rent-controlled rental properties, except for ADUs built in

existing condominium buildings with no prior eviction history, which would also provide for new homeownership opportunities.

space. They can then rely financially on renting the larger original unit, potentially to a family with children, while still staying in the same building and the same community.

2. Junior Accessory Dwellings Units

The recent ADU program in the City only allows use of underused space in a building, and does not allow using space from an existing unit to be converted to a new unit. Another potential solution would be the development of junior ADUs. The junior ADUs are units created from turning an existing bedroom and some living space into a new unit. These would be a much less costly alternative to create an ADU from parking or storage space. By adding a wall and a small countertop kitchen, the junior ADU could provide additional revenue and all the lifestyle flexibility of an ADU mentioned above. Junior ADUs would then be easily removed to return the main unit into its original state.

29

MODEL FOR A NEW OLD HOUSING TYPE, THE "MISSING MIDDLE"San Francisco has a wide range of house types, including two- and three-family stacked flats, courtyard apartments, two-and three-story small apartment buildings, and larger buildings. The majority of these structures occupy one, or possibly two standard lots. Even our newer and low-rise neighborhoods like the Outer Sunset include rear-yard cottages and two story buildings (for example, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Judah and Kirkham Streets) and three-story buildings providing up to a dozen or more apartments (39th Avenue at Irving).

These building types are great for families. They are compact and include yards and kid-friendly communal space, as well as fairly easy pedestrian access to amenities. Outdoor play areas, in courtyards, front or back yards, are easily visible from living spaces. But in recent years, we are seeing very little of this housing type being built, and what little is built has a price tag out of reach for many families.

This housing type is coined the Missing Middle. Mid-size buildings are much less expensive than single family homes and fit in with the scale of our urban neighborhoods. They are likely to receive greater acceptance from neighbors than podium-style buildings. This building type represents not the skyscrapers we see in SoMa, but a range of buildings, like the three-story, six unit buildings in the Mission, the four-story courtyard apartments in the Sunset, or the three to five story apartments bordering Golden Gate Park.

Until current residential zoning codes were adopted, this diversity housing type was common in our city. But in the mid 1970s, new zoning limited these multifamily homes in favor of suburban style single family homes. The map on the next page illustrates how many older multi-unit buildings exist today in our single family (RH-1) and duplex (RH-2) zoning areas, demonstrating just how many properties exceed current zoning requirements. That is, current zoning would not allow these buildings to be built today, even though they are central to the character of our neighborhoods. Zoning for development of the Missing Middle would be a return to an older pattern of residential urban development.

MISSING MIDDLE EXAMPLESExisting Missing Middle building types that provide easy, ground-level access while remaining compatible with neighborhood scale and character.

1. Two- and Three-Family Flats, Church Street. Photo from Google Earth.

2. Three-Story Apartments, Irving & 39th. Photo from Google Earth.

3. Outer Sunset Rear Yard Buildings. Photo from Google Earth.

4. Courtyard Apartments: Las Casitas, Bay Street. Photo by

OpenHomesPhotography.com

5. Four-Story Aparments, Irving & 2nd. Photo from Google Earth.

6. Missing Middle Diagram, Opticos Design.

3

5


1

4

2

Cred

it: D

avid

Leo

ngIf the City were to incentivize this building type in outer neighborhoods like Bayview, Excelsior, Portola, the Richmond and the Sunset, these family friendly buildings would blend with the existing single family homes. Increased density can create the foot traffic to support local commercial corridors. But current density limits and neighborhood opposition deter developers from building much of anything in these areas of the city. For example, between 2001 and 2013, the Sunset added a meager 41 buildings with more than three units -- that’s not quite three buildings a year.

Two-and three-story older housing stock of San Francisco blends well (even though it can be a jump in scale or char-acter) while providing housing that is sized and priced more affordably for families. Most San Francisco neighborhoods already have this successful mix of scales. Reintroducing these scales would bring new architectural styles into older neighborhoods and the Planning Department’s Residential Design Guidelines would help guide the introduction of new construction into existing residential areas.

Unlike many recent apartment and condo buildings, most or all units in older buildings have individual front doors at the sidewalk and many buildings have rear yards for play and family activities. When combined, it makes neighborhoods of variety and character that are harmonious in scale.

6

31

BARRIERS TO CREATING MORE OF THE "MISSING MIDDLE"Data of San Francisco‘s existing housing stock shows that approximately 20% of units are within single, detached homes. The attached single family home, or rowhouse, comprises 13% of the stock; 10% of our units are in two unit apartment buildings; and 12% are in three to four unit build-ings (see chart below).26 While this style of attached multi-unit housing was prevalent throughout the history of the City, this style of housing is no longer being built. Between 2011 and 2015 88% of the new housing being built is in buildings with 20 or more units.26

One tool to change this restriction is to allow neighborhoods to be zoned by the form that the building takes, also known as form-based zoning. This tool allows the City to regulate based on the appearance, the height, the bulk, etc. and not simply based on the number of units. Regulations can still ensure that lot size is considered and that there are a maximum number of total units and/or a minimum number of larger two and three bedroom units to ensure that this type of housing remains family-friendly housing. In a recent feasibility analysis conducted for the Planning Department, limited increase in density allowed made certain projects feasible, thus increasing the number of units that could be built for families throughout our neighborhoods.28

One reason that the Missing Middle is no longer being built is because of our zoning restrictions. Current zoning restricts 72% of our privately owned parcels to single-family homes and duplexes, putting the burden of population growth, for both jobs and housing, on the remaining 28%. In the adja-cent zoning map, all of the yellow is currently zoned only for single family homes and duplexes (RH-1 and RH-2).

Larger lots are frequently found in the eastern part of San Francisco where podium-style and even tower housing can be built, but the City has a limited number of lots large enough to host this scale of building. Small-lot, three to five story, family-friendly housing would be entirely in keeping with our western neighborhoods, where relatively few households occupy comparatively large swaths of our city’s land.

The “Missing Middle” is housing that could be more more affordable for families and fit in well with our historic tradi-tion of different types of housing throughout our neighbor-hoods. These housing types could provide the much-needed family housing that is no longer being built.

The zoning for the majority of San Francisco, like in other many cities, regulates density (the number of units permitted on a parcel, independent of height, bulk, and mass). On a lot that is zoned for single-family housing, only a single-family home can be built. The mixed housing in neighborhoods like Bernal Heights, the Haight, or parts of the Sunset and Richmond, is there because it was built before current zoning regula-tions were put into place. These neighborhoods could not be built under today’s regulations. Today’s zoning regulations in western and southern San Francisco zone solely based on the number of units. In a single-family home neighborhood you can have one very large home under current zoning laws, but not two or three appropriately sized units.

26 5-year American Community Survey, 2010-2014 27 http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/2015_Housing_Inventory_Final_Web.pdf 28 http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/

plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/ahbp/ahbp_seifel_AffordableHousingBonusProgram_FinalDraft.pdf

Density controls are laws that limit the number of housing units allowed on a parcel. One way is to limit the number of units regardless of parcel size, the other is to limit the number of units in ratio to the lot size. One alternative to density controls is what is often referred to as form-based code, which controls the height and bulk of a building, but not the number of units in the building.


Buildings that couldn’t be built under existing zoning Parcels that exceed density in RH-1 and RH-2

33

NEXT STEPSThis briefing outlines the need for housing for families with children across the ecnomic spectrum and provides a number of considerations for modifying or expanding existing housing stock, as well as family-friendly design considerations for new housing. A new model for mid-scale family oriented housing, “the missing middle,” offers a new approach to family housing.

This briefing is the first step in opening up a conversation between agencies, policymakers, and communities about possible solutions to the dearth of family friendly housing in San Francisco. The next step is to dig deeper into a handful of specific topics and explore the challenges and possible solutions, with particular attention to maintaining economic diversity and supporting those most impacted by our curren housing crisis.

1

2

3

4

5

Learn more about residents in existing larger units. Only 30% of 3+ bedroom units are occupied by families. Research into why 70% of these larger units are occupied by others could help identify policies that could make this existing housing stock more available to families and better meet the needs of the rest of San Francisco’s residents.

Talk with stakeholders about design questions. This paper asks a number of questions about the design of new market rate housing and how to create new models for affordable family housing, spanning all housing types: small scale, mid-rise, and high rise. Through stakeholder outreach, discussions, and forums, the City can determine which design characteristics need further research and discussion, which might be able to move forward easily, and which might not be viable. This will help identify which tools are appropriate in accomplishing family friendly design characteristics.

Consider supports for building for the Missing Middle, a mid-scale family oriented building typology. In our current building boom, we are seeing very little housing that is right-sized and affordable for middle income families. There is ample land capacity, without removing existing housing, to build small-scale multi-unit buildings in family-friendly neighborhoods. There is a lot to consider about the Missing Middle, including what it could look like, how it can be integrated into our neighborhoods, and how to encourage its construction.

6

Explore additional tools to make existing housing more family friendly. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs give fami-lies the flexibility to adapt their housing to their needs over time—from having young children to caring for aging parents. Other creative policies may help make existing housing more family friendly. In addition, process changes can make adding a bedroom or additional living space less costly and time consuming and provide options for families to stay in their homes.

Consider adopting a definition of family-friendly unit and family-friendly building into the General Plan. A clear definition of what the family friendly unit and building should contain could encourage and create policy and programs for family friendly housing. The definition of a family friendly unit should include at least two or more bedrooms. The building definition could include any number of amenities, like easy access to outdoor space, storage space, etc. The inclusion of many amenities would necessitate a trade-off with affordability and would require further study.

Look for solutions to overcrowded living conditions. Too many families with children live in overcrowded Single Room Occupancy hotels and studios. The City should continue to work with affordable housing developers and community groups, such as the SRO Collaborative, to deter-mine what policies and programs could support these families in moving into appropriate housing and what resources we could provide these fami-lies until they are able to relocate.


APPENDIX: WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING


The challenge of retaining or attracting families to urban areas is not unique to San Francisco. Other cities have explored family-friendly design and developed tools including guide-lines, requirements, and examples to encourage housing for families. Vancouver, Emeryville, Portland, and Seattle have had similar struggles and developed strategies applicable to San Francisco. For example, Seattle and Portland are actively seeking to boost the stock of affordable family units through guidelines and design competitions to create family housing. This chapter summarizes our research into how other cities have developed design guidelines to encourage new construction that values families.

TOOL FOCUS

VANCOUVER, CAN

High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines, 1992

Guest suites, indoor and outdoor open space; 25% family-units; considering increase to 35% with 10% of units 3+ bdrms

PORTLAND, OR

Courtyard Housing Competition, 2007

Block-level interior courtyards and open space

SEATTLE, WA

Family-Sized Housing: Whitepaper & Action Agenda, 2014

Adopted a definition of family-friendly

EMERYVILLE, CA

Family Friendly section in Residential Design Guidelines, 2012

Attract families into larger units instead of unrelated adults; 15% 3 bdrms, 35% 2 bdrms, maximum 10% studios in all 10+ unit developments

37

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIAVancouver is considered a leader in attracting families to their downtown. Around one-third of the households in Vancouver have children and this population has stayed consistent even while the prices of their homes continue to soar.29 This work began in 1992, when the city created High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines, which required two or more bedroom units, project-level amenities including indoor common space, laundry on-site, guest suites, and improved outdoor open space, to name just a few.

Vancouver requires a minimum of 25% family units in new developments, which they define as two or more bedrooms. Recent efforts in Vancouver have focused on the production of larger units with three bedroom or more because the market is producing very few of these units (only 5% new units built in 2012-2013 were three or more bedrooms).

At the same time, their single-family housing prices have increased tremendously. Recent data indicates that the median housing price for a detached home went up 30% in the last year. Based on a recently completed a feasibility study, Vancouver is recommending that the requirement for two bedroom units increase from 25% to 35% and that there be a minimum of 10% three or more bedrooms. This recom-mendation may also include siting these units to encourage their affordability, such as allowing the third bedroom to use borrowed light (a room with indirect access to a window or light well) or requiring units to be located on lower levels of the building. (The San Francisco Building Code already allows borrowed light for all bedrooms.) Vancouver is also revisiting their design guidelines and are seeing positive results from requirements for unit size, guest suites, and indoor/outdoor common space.

29 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/13/vancouver-real-estate_n_9951196.html 30 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-real-estate-house-prices-1.3564528


EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIAFor the past two decades, Emeryville has undertaken a trans-formation from an industrial town to an urban town with a mix of residential, commerce, and office. Emeryville has focused on attracting families during their significant growth in recent years. It was one of the first cities in the country to require developments to include three bedroom units (15% must be three bedrooms). But the city has found that occupancy of those units is primarily by unrelated individuals and so to encourage more family-friendly units rather than roommate situations, they prohibited bathrooms from being en suite to bedrooms. The impact of this requirement is unclear and future monitoring will determine if the outcome is as intended.

Emeryville has Family Friendly guidelines within their Residential Design Guidelines, including additional safety measures, pedestrian circulation, and entrance location. The Guidelines detail the access and relationship of living areas, bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens to each other. Where design guidelines apply to the unit, design review with developers has been difficult for Emeryville planning staff.31 Emeryville requires that 50% of all units in developments with ten or more units have a minimum of two or more bedrooms and a maximum of 10% studios. As the program is in its early stages, they will continue learning about its impacts through further data collection on the households that are occupying these units. There may be lessons for San Francisco in Emeryville’s challenges with design review and applying guidelines at a unit level. It will be interesting to see how the requirement for 2+ bedrooms impacts the number of families.

31 Discussion with Miroo Desai, Senior Planner Emeryville

39

PORTLAND, OREGONAnother leader in attracting families to urban areas is Portland, Oregon. Portland’s population of children under 18 is 25%, far exceeding San Francisco’s 18%.

Two different issues are arising in Portland between Inner and Outer City neighborhoods. Most development in Inner Portland neighborhoods is not geared toward families. These units are small, expensive, and have fewer bedrooms per unit. Outer Portland neighborhoods have overcrowded schools and multifamily developments lack adequate yards and open spaces, leaving kids to play in parking lots. Most of Portland’s housing stock is single family homes with yards, so part of Portland’s program goal was to help families reimagine what family-friendly is--that it can be a multi-family unit large enough for families with children. Portland focused on creating more open space and courtyards to encourage higher-density housing better suited to meet the needs of families, many of whom live in higher density housing that often includes little usable outdoor space.

Portland planning staff worked with design professionals and other cities working on family-friendly efforts to develop Principles of Child Friendly Housing. These principles include: versatile courtyards, functional homes, sustainable solu-tions, interior/exterior relationships, affordable designs, and contextual responses. In 2007, the Portland Courtyard Housing Competition32 challenged designers to improve the design of multi-dwelling and rowhouse development. Portland created a best practices catalogue with competition winners, which is used to encourage dialogue between the community and developers, and to inspire new development with the winning designs.33

Since the catalogue was created, several new developments have incorporated some of these features. As well, the City is re-evaluating its outdoor requirements and how the urban design guidelines can integrate site design. While the compe-tition concentrated on one aspect of housing, courtyard open space, it covered one of the main concerns the city was hearing from families in multi-unit buildings: that there was not enough open space provided. This type of catalogue could be useful in San Francisco to assist in a productive discussion about design and development amenities between City staff, community, architects, and project sponsors.

32 http://www.courtyardhousing.org/ 33 Conversation with Bill Cunningham, Planner for the City of Portland Bureau of Planning


SEATTLE, WASHINGTONSeattle is seeing an influx of a younger generation. Their 2011 Housing Seattle Report34

revealed gaps and disparities in how well the current housing market serves low and middle income families. In June 2014, the city published “Family Sized Housing: An essential ingre-dient to attract and retain families with Children in Seattle,” which includes incentives, requirements, and partnerships with family-friendly focused organizations in the city. Seattle is in the early stages of these efforts, but the action agenda presents a variety of possibilities that San Francisco can consider for examples where family-friendly housing issues fit in amongst different agencies. The whitepaper set forth the following benefits of supporting families in cities and urban neighborhoods: reduced costs for households (primarily trans-portation costs), public health benefits (being able to walk, bike, and take transit), more family time (shorter commutes for parents), greater economic competitiveness (availability of a greater pool of talent), reduced environmental footprint, furthering the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative, and a city that is good for children is good for all.

As in San Francisco, new market rate apartments are not built for families with children. Only 2% of the market-rate apartment units in 2009 have three or more bedrooms, and half of that fraction is affordable to low-income families. In addition, rents have increased substantially since 2009. To increase the number of affordable family-sized units, Seattle is considering a variety of tools and resources across both low and high density neighborhoods. The following actions are laid out in the City’s white paper.

1. Allow added flexibility in single-family zoned areas with frequent, reliable transit, and in other selected areas.

2. Foster a larger supply of family-friendly low-rise and midrise multifamily housing.

3. Ensure bonus development provisions and incentive zoning programs work to encourage family-sized units.

4. Advance the creation of residential cores with ground-related housing.

5. Ensure the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program encourages the production of 2+ bedroom units.

6. Encourage the creation of more family-friendly housing through innovative design and construction.

7. In affordable housing programs, include a strong priority for families with children.

8. Strengthen partnerships to align School District planning and capital investments.

9. Institute a family-oriented lens in updating Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan.

10. Devote resources needed to further inform this Action Plan and steward its success.

These specific actions provide a clear direction for Seattle’s work and introduce valuable partnerships citywide to make the city a more family friendly place. San Francisco can evaluate this action plan for potential next steps that relate to our city, neighborhoods, and schools.

34 http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SeattlePlanningCommission/HousingSeattleReport/HousingSeattleweb.pdf

41

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA Apartment living in Melbourne is becoming more popular than ever before; more than one third of all dwelling starts in 2014 were apartments. To respond to this influx of urban living, Melbourne created the Better Apartments project to focus on the internal amenities and policy objectives to allow a more diverse range of households. Higher Density Housing Guidelines already exist in Melbourne, but they were not detailed enough to require architects and developers to comply. The first step in their Better Apartments project was creating a discussion paper to encourage a housing type mix and an approach for multi-family buildings.

To begin, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning identified 14 issues that spanned different scales of an apartment, from unit to building to site, such as daylight, noise, and landscaping. The community ranked these issues on importance for families. They surveyed focused strictly on apartment living quality, so Melbourne was able to identify specific priorities for internal design. Of course, contextual factors also impact a resident’s choice to live somewhere, and the community survey did report that the majority of the respondents selected close proximity to all amenities, cheaper transport costs and low maintenance as leading benefits to living in apartments.

The discussion paper addressed each ranked issue, potential impact, and relevant factors. The relevant factors broke out the main issue i.e, daylight, into further design strategies. Then, the paper posed questions back to the community on whether particular design strategies would enhance apart-ment living. Extensive engagement included an online survey of people living in apartments, and public survey submissions to create a spread of responses that the city is using to begin a discussion with a design consultant and internal reference group to begin drafting design guidelines. Melbourne will continue their public engagement process to prepare a draft of design guidelines and mechanisms, and work towards implementation and monitoring of the satisfaction of those living in apartments. In concert with the discussion paper and design guidelines, Melbourne will do a cost-benefit analysis with the Better Apartments project to understand the guide-lines’ impact on affordability and overall community benefit.

Melbourne’s focus on changing the mindset of what it means to live in an apartment goes back to the basic human needs when looking for a quality place to live. By focusing their efforts and engaging the community that will be, or already is, living in apartments, Melbourne creates a model that is transferable to many cities. We know that families consider many factors when choosing a place to live, but the basis of a quality home is an important place to start.


Family Friendly Briefing - SF Planning

Documents

Transcript of Family Friendly Briefing - SF Planning